Slashdot Mirror
Are Colleges Helping to Maintain the Microsoft Monopoly?
lexus99 asks: "Recently, while attending college and wanting to take tests in order to avoid taking basic computer courses, I have signed up for a few SAM (Skills Assessment Manager) tests. What really surprised me is that these tests are entirely based upon Microsoft products (Windows XP and Office XP). Note that this course is -required- before taking any any of the more advanced courses. Is this not a clear cut case of U.S. Colleges forcing its students to exclusively use Microsoft's software? Does Microsoft pay for this 'privledge', or do the schools get some type of M$ discounts? I don't believe that I will have any problem passing these tests, as I frequently use M$ software in my workplace, but I cannot help but feel insulted that I have to take them in order to take more advanced UNIX courses." This issue is a lot more complex than it sounds. Many colleges fall into Microsoft's software because they do get decent volume discounts and Microsoft provides them with decent service, so why change what works? However, with the new licensing schemes that Microsoft is beginning to push, maybe we'll see some change in this area in the near future. Have any of you seen evidence of Microsoft worming it's way into your college courses?
You pay for what you get.
In my 400 level 'intro to graphics' the professor REQUIRED that we use MS Products for developement.
Several weeks later after ~50% of the class wouldn't be quiet about it, he said he'd allow any language, but no others were supported by the TA.
The following semester he continued to allow any tools/language, but only 'supported' M$.
This is not a troll ... I use Linux/FreeBSD exclusively; don't even own a Windoze box ... BUT ;), but this is the real world. (Unfortunately, IMHO), windows is what is "out there", predominantly. While I am excited by the growth in Linux's market share, and anticipate the day MS is no longer an effective monopoly, I am realistic; One needs a minimal level of proficiency in MS Products to succeed. At work, we are a GNU Linux/FreeBSD shop; all servers, all development,EXCEPT for the workstations in Sales, which are Win2000 ... So, even though I am a "Unix Guy", I still have to deal with Windows, which is the case in, I suspect, virtually any job (hell, even if you are a web developer in a strictly Unix Server environment, you STILL should test on Windows browsers!!)
... What exactly is your problem here? do you think you should be graduated ignorant of the OS with the *vastly* greater market share? What would *that* say about your school?
1) requiring students to have a proficiency in MS Products in no way "forcing its students to exclusively use Microsoft's software?" The problem here is your [mis]use of the word "exclusively".
2) I am as pro OSS as anyone (except perhaps RMS
So
I go to University of Texas at Arlington, and we have similar requirements here called Computer User Profeciency. Everyone is required to take it and demonstrate basic skills in Word processing and spreadsheets (also internet and e-mail). The tests occur on MS products, simply because that's what 90% of the world uses. However, they keep the tests as general as possible, and anyone who uses KOffice, the Gnome suite, or Open Office can do fine.
My CS 171 course is taught using solely VC++. In fact alot of students noticed when I brought in a non-Windows lappy into our lab (our classroom is several long tables with Thinkpads with NT4 on them) -- they look at me differently because I get all my work done with vim in a console. I am by no means even a power *NIX user, and it concerns me that I get the feeling that they think I'm doing something they couldn't do.
At UTD where I currently am attending, and the same with all UT system schools (including, but not limited to Tyler, El Paso, Austin, etc.) its $6 a copy for Win98SE, Win2k or WinXP Pro.
$6
I know this is not the popular opinion here, but for $6, I can have me a Legal copy of any of the preceeding OSes. I hate to say it, because I think that Micro$oft (ooo.. look at me, I'm cool becuase I used $ in stead of an 's.' I'm a clever boy) has too much sway and control over computing these days, but this is simply good business. Continuing to keep people using your products is not a sign of a monopoly, its a sign of a competitive business. All smart companies that desire to remain companies will do this.
I went out and got all three and then some other MS software because its dirt cheap, it does what I want and its what the world uses. Eventually, I will have a server running, using Linux, but not for my desktop.
But then again, I'm probably just a troll sell out or something. I can kiss my kharma good bye for this one can't because I have original ideas can't I?
I believe the root of this question lays in a general education requirements that a number of colleges/universities.
Lets say a university wants to employ a basic computing skills class for the general education requirements. So, you make a CS101 class. But, how do you create a lesson plan for this class? How do you teach word processing on a computer that's inexpensive from installation to support? Not to mention having the attempt for the class material to be applicable in the lives of the student.
As much as I would like to see a more competitive/open environment, the open source products of word processing and operating systems in general are not at that level yet, and certainly not in the past 10+ years. The only real player has been Microsoft with Corel/WordPerfect in a very distant 2nd.
At this point in time it makes economical and educational sense to go with MS products. However, this could change if a number of things happen, which I personally would like to see.
AnamanFan - Trying to find the Truth, one post at a time.
" I get all my work done with vim in a console. I am by no means even a power *NIX user, and it concerns me that I get the feeling that they think I'm doing something they couldn't do."
(I'm quoting a post but not replying to it, because this is on a different topic, but Im quoting for relevance)
It's sad to see them teach students how to use a product, instead of how to use the language.
I think they should spend the first month on enviroments, 2 weeks to learn vc++, a few days on pico, a week and some change on vi(only the basic movement/insertion/deletion, stuff vimtutor would show), and the rest on all the fun gcc options. Then the students would be able to code in most standard enviroments, and the rest of the time should be spent teaching the kids the actual language. The teacher shouldnt even care what editor you use, as long as you turn in working code.
Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
I recently signed up for a bunch of smaller classes at a newer and smaller Swedish college. They are 100% M$ and only give "support" for "WS_FTP" and such things.
The labs are all equipped with WIN-DOS, with a rare exception for the film editing classes, where classy Mac computers are used (and the executives also use TiBooks on WiFi).
The teacher (not a professor) in the graphics class is praising his M$ certification, but I wish he could get a more relevant Adobe certification instead. He doesn't even use Adobe, but has opted for Corel instead. In the real world, where I have been for a while before returning to school, the combination WIN-DOS + Corel PhotoPaint does not exist. The labs don't have Photoshop or Illustrator, so it's gotta be a money issue.
The web classes have a similar approach. They teach outdated 1996ish table-based and pixel-based HTML for Exploiter and Netscape 4.x, and don't give a fuck about standards and more legitimate web techniques. The WIN-DOS labs have Internet Exploiter 5 and Netscape Communicator 4.79. Mozilla is not known, and they really don't care about the Mozilla-based Netscape 7.
Now, at larger and more traditional educational institutions, Sun boxen and Macs are used to a much higher degree. When the web was born circa 1993, the sysadmins at a technical educational facility quickly installed NCSA Mosaic and set up a web server. This is more in line what I would expect from educational institutions, being ahead and being more advanced than what they require at a small company office...
Fortunately, they still do have a more Unix and Mac oriented view at those larger and traditional facilities, but I fear that they too will be swamped into the black M$ hole one of these days.
frawaradaR anahaha islaginaR!
"...but feel insulted that I have to take them in order to take more advanced UNIX courses."
Bah ha ha! So you see, Unix truly is better than Windows. They save the best for last. Windows is like the crappy job you take and keep for a reference before going onto the really good one.
On a side note, my university gave out copies of WinXP for free to computer science/computer engineering majors. Microsoft PAID groupd of students who headed a group called MSUG (MicroSoft Users Group) to brainwash people into being Microsoft junkies. They got an assist by handing out free copies of Win2K, Office, Visual Studio, etc. Digital crack.
Trolls make great pets. Adopt one today!
At a certain College located in McKeesport, PA that I attend, I just a few weeks ago, for the first time Ever, decided to go into and look at the "New" lab. One of the first thing I noticed upon entering was a big old black banner in the back, "Where do you want to go today?".......
The network is exclusivly Windows, nothing else, anywhere. But the courses themselves are not MS specific except one that will reqire me to show the ability to make a web page, and we are only allowed to use FrontPage, but then again, the same class forces us to use Eudora for our college email account. My CS Course for this semester requires us to use not VC++, but Borland Turbo C++ for windows 4.5 (I think).
And then there was the software contract. Up untill about the end of August, you could get any piece of MS software free, and now, it's not free anymore, but we still fly their banner in the most high tech newest lab in the place....
(Score:0, Interesting)
Universities have been promoting Unix for many years and prior to Linux were probably the single most important factor keeping it alive.
Just as Unix and its derivatives have played a prominent role in industry on the server, MS OS's obviously have played a prominent role on the desktop. If a university wants to prepare students for the real world, it needs to include all the most important OS's, languages, etc. Instructors should point out the strengths and weaknesses of each and let the students draw their own conclusions.
The Business School, however, uses Microsoft products. They won't buy any of "powerpoint/word/excel is proprietary" arguments -- they'll just smile and tell you that they are the standards.
Can you really argue with them? Take the whole population of Earth. Now sift out everybody that doesn't use a computer (that's most of 'em). You're left with, what, a couple hundred million people? Something like nine out of ten of 'em use Windows.
For editable documents, Word is absolutely the standard. For spreadsheets, there's not even a contest; it's Excel in a walk. And while there are certainly other ways to do viewgraph-style presentations, virtually everybody uses Powerpoint.
Nobody cares that these things are proprietary. They're ubiquitous. That's enough to be called the standard.
If you want to send somebody out into the world to be a salesman-- or any other job in business-- not teaching him how to use Excel would be like not teaching him how to dress himself or eat with utensils.
I write in my journal
The simple fact of the matter is that the school can only afford to support one platform
That is not a fact. That is a cop out from people who are too stupid to do things in a general way-- people who don't know the subject matter, and only know the PRODUCTS.
There's nothing MS specific about programming languages, mathematics, or even office Apps. Colleges that require you to get a PC (instead of a Mac) are not going to teach you anything. They are a waste of money.
There's nothing that they could need to teach taht couldn't be taught on any platform the student chooses.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
People really do need to be able to work with Windows. Sure, unices may be better operating systems at the technical level and it's endearing that you're rooting for the underdog, but Windows is what is out there. When Unix is running on a significant percentage of home computers and a larger percentage of office machines, universities will be teaching that. They're teaching what's useful, it has nothing to do with Microsoft playing Big Brother.
The only computer science classes you're going to get on Windows at Carnegie Mellon University is if you're a non-CS major taking intro CS classes. These are done using Metrowerks' suite (as opposed to MS's).
Everything else is done on Linux or Solaris. I'm taking a *video games* course that is taught on Linux.
Couldn't be a better place if you like doing your work in a UNIX environment.
Students are told in their third CS course that while they can turn in proofs written in Microsoft Equation Editor, that it will be harder, and that they are strongly recommended to learn LaTeX.
I still remember a philosophy professor that handed out an assignment in Word format.
I thought about complaining, but thought that it wasn't worth it, so I just printed it out at one of the clusters that have Windows installed.
The next day, in class, the professor said "due to overwhelming demand, future assignments will be given in PDF format..."
There's no reliance within the university on Microsoft file formats, and serious animosity to moving to anything that's available only from Microsoft.
If you want a good CS curriculum that isn't a bunch of regurgitated "how to design foo in Visual Studio", and you like UNIX...you're likely to like CMU.
May we never see th
That's ludicrous.
for $6, I can have me a Legal copy of any of the preceeding OSes...is not a sign of a monopoly, its a sign of a competitive business
This is called predatory pricing (unless you really think that total costs in producing and shipping that product to you were under $6) is is not only illegal but one of the top warning signs for a monopoly.
May we never see th
I have to agree.
GCC is a much better tool than Visual Studio for most people.
You could drop $100-$2000 on your development system for a product that's limited to few languages, doesn't support C anymore, and can't run anywhere but Windows, and has a UI that keeps changing, rendering old skills obsolete.
You could also get a software package that's freely downloadable, supports lots of languages (and keeps getting more), and runs on just about every software package known to mankind.
The choice seems pretty straightforward to me.
May we never see th
Thanks to Balmer and our good Linux-friendly friend news.com, we have more wonderful Microsoft quotes.
.Net is obviously XML): Well, the benefit of .Net is XML...We take the XML connection and we extended it across both client and server -- while other guys are only server-focused. It's about connecting people to people, people to information, businesses to businesses, businesses to information, and so on. That is the benefit....it's a set of code we ship that...people use to help build applications that process XML information....it's getting to be conventional wisdom that the future of IT is around XML. But I'd like conventional wisdom to be that XML brings benefits today, and the best way to participate in the XML revolution -- in terms of user benefits and productivity -- is Visual Studio.Net.
...next major Windows release, called Longhorn. I'm sure we will have some service packs in between.
Balmer Quote 1: The truth is, we probably made (.Net) a little harder to understand than we (should) have.
Balmer Quote 2 (in which Balmer makes it quite plain that he's going to drive home the point that the marketroids prepped him with -- that XML is Good, money should be spent on XML, and
Balmer Quote 3 (in which Balmer shows himself happily living in his own world): A Yankee Group study says 40 percent of corporations surveyed were looking at operating system alternatives such as Linux, in part because of the Microsoft licensing program. But I think they are okay with where they are.
Balmer Quote 4: The Linux [platform] hardly runs any applications, except a bunch of shareware stuff that's not very good.
Balmer Quote 5: There has yet to be any innovation, new features or new capabilities out of the Linux platform. [Me -- so how the hell has *Microsoft* pushed technology forward?] But I don't think anyone should expect anything innovative coming out of that [Linux] world.
Balmer Quote 6: And we are going to have as or more a community as Linux does. [Me -- in your wet dreams, Balmer]
Balmer Quote 7 (in which Balmer discusses the buggy nature of Windows):
May we never see th
I consult for a law firm and this is a big problem. Interns come in straight from undergrad and bitch and cry because they don't have Word. Despite the glaring security holes and lesser functionality for lawyers, they are considering deploying Word on their workstations alongside Wordperfect just to stay compatible with their clients and to pacify these interns.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
I just recently graduated from the Comp Sci department at SFU. My impression: The business faculty is very pro-Microsoft. Everything is done using Word, PPT, IE, etc. The problem is that the people making the decisions have gained their skills on MS platforms.
A good chunk (probably about 2/3) of the professors in the Comp Sci department despise MS products and are *nix guys. In other terms, prefer to use *nix on their primary machine. But, and a big but, a lot of stuff that is taught that is platform specific, is taught with respect to MS products. For example, GUI development is taught using MFC.
And that is the problem. When general computing methodolgies/techniques are taught, they apply to *nix platforms without much tinkering. But when you try to apply techniques to MS platforms, there is a poop-load of exceptions that you have to be aware of.
For example:
This how you code in C++, but this is how VC++ implements for-scoping.
These are the techniques to design "good" user interfaces, but this is how you would implement them in Windows.
There is a lot of pressure from industry for students to learn to be efficient on the Windows platform and other "high demand" tools/methodoligies (such as Java/extreme programming/XML/etc). What usually happens is that companies screen based on "buzz words". And there is a lot of pressure from industry to produce graduates that have training in licking the flavour of the month, rather than having solid understanding of Comp Sci principles. They seem to want MCSEs, that can get the particular task done now and do not care about the future; rather than people who understand general principles that will apply for decades to come.
For example, a local Vancouver company [cough]Crystal Decisions[/cough] did not want to hire me for a position because I had not programmed in Java. Despite the fact that I have been writing Object-Oriented C++ code for 5+ years and that I'm currently teaching my sister Java who is taking CS101.
The problem is that CS departments are very heavily influenced by industry. And who is the biggest heavy-weight in industry? (That question was rhetorical).
A really sneaky way to go about solving the problem follows:
E
Marxist evolution is just N generations away!
I'm using Gnome 1.4 for a VLSI Layout class and Win XP for Signal Processing. Here's what I've noticed...
.login files and corrupt desktop settings. XP provides this, Linux doesn't. I believe this will change in a few years...
Gnome:
1) Recently Gnome suddenly started refusing to start up. I needed to log into a Windows machine and blow away "~/.gnome*". Bye bye settings. Figuring that out and then setting everything up again killed a LOT of time. It was infuriating.
2) No decent text editor. gedit stinks. Today, Kate is just now becoming usable. It'll take two more years for today's version to get onto the lab computers.
3) No word processor. AbiWord is only just now becoming usable. OpenOffice is becoming decent too, but holy cow is it big and slow. Again, two years until today's versions are in the labs.
4) Motif apps. Mathematica and Matlab are big, slow (try resizing a window), clunky (careful of the numlock key), and ugly. Mouse wheel doesn't work. They are painful to use.
5) Can't copy and paste pictures. Think I'm kidding? Try writing a paper where you need to save all 45 Matlab plots to disk and manually open them in AbiWord. It takes forever.
XP: I use Matlab and Word and I've never had a single issue. Well, the XP UI is one of the most hideous things I've ever seen, but it seems to work well enough.
I run Linux exclusively at home. At school, though, it is time-consuming and hard to use. Right now, Microsoft deserves to dominate the computer labs. I just need to get my work done ASAP, not fiddle with
Recently Gnome suddenly started refusing to start up. Have you tried Enlightenment? You can install it (like anything else) in your home directory, without root access, by conifurging it with something like --prefix=/home/dozer/enlightenment and adding the executable to your .xinitrc or .xsession file.
Luckily with Linux you have an alternative to using mem-heavy UI's like KDE and GNOME, while still getting the benefits from having their libraries installed. (You can still run programs that require Gnome, without running the Gnome environment).
As a side note, you probably could have used Ctrl-Alt-Backspace to kill the X server and edit those files on the console rather than using a M$ machine to do it ;)
No decent text editor. gedit stinks.
Download NEdit. You get syntax highlighting, line numbers, and a whole bunch of other nifty stuff without feeling "bloated" while using it. It even comes precompiled for most platforms ;)
Motif apps. Mathematica and Matlab are big, slow ...
The rest of the world agrees. Write a letter to Wolfram. =P
No word processor. ...Can't copy and paste pictures.
Sounds like it's time to take an hour and learn LaTeX. Afterwords, you'll never want to use a word processor or paste pictures again. Additionally, your term papers and reports will be written faster and look more professional. An added benefit comes when you consider that most science journals would require you to submit a paper in LaTeX, so it's better to learn *now* than *later* after you've written your 100+ page thesis in M$ Word and have to transfer all of it.
-=[You cannot consistently judge this statement to be true.]=-
At Georgia Tech Microsoft has recently begun a deal where any student who has taken the third CS class or higher automatically gets free access to a website where he can download two copies of each of the latest Windows OSes and many fully licensed copies of developer software. As far as I know this is free to school and comes with no strings attached. Smart move by Microsoft I say, as this seemed much more attractive and simple than the deals mentioned in some of the above posts.
-Miles Stoudenmire
There are really two important questions here:
The first question seems to about whether colleges are getting people comfortable with Microsoft products, or accomodating them if they are already comfortable. OTOH, the second question is a matter of whether courses specifically teach skills in a Microsoft-centric fashion.
Realistically, I can't speak to a trend, but I can tell you how things are at my school. I attend an engineering college. Obviously, this makes us not big on CS; therefore, we tend to deploy Windows on most of our open labs. It's what most students and professors are comfortable with when they arrive. Therefore, a lot of non-CS students see a lot of Windows. At least at first.
But simultaneously there is an open Linux lab in which anyone can get accounts with non-too-shabby computers. Almost no one but Geophysics uses it, but they require its use for some courses. And all of the nice physics labs for 3rd year and higher physics majors run Redhat. They're set up with Linux because all junior level and above reports must be done in LaTeX.
Everyone is required to take at least one programming course, which normally winds up being Fortran or C/C++ for everyone. Chemical engineers can take VB. C/C++ is taught almost exclusively on IRIX boxes. Only recently have we had a teacher that even required any exposure to visual studio for that class -- or any low-to-mid level CS class.
As far as CS students go, all high-level CS classes tend to either be a Unix-environment or a 'use any environment available on campus'. Most teaching is mathematically and theoretically centered. I can't count how many times teachers have said in lecture that we're being taught important theory and not too much application because we might as well go to a trade school if we just want to learn current applications.
What about non-CS required courses? We're all required to take a lot of general courses, one of which (EPICS) includes required use of Microsoft Project. We're all required to take a year of calculus-based physics whose labs were taught in additional Redhat labs. They're not Windows labs.
Myself, I find this pretty mixed. There are a lot of *nix machines on campus but they're frequently not obvious until you get in a class that requires them or you simply seek them out. We more-or-less force some cross-platform experience on all majors. But if someone wants to be all Microsoft, he can probably get by like that if he doesn't mind taking alternate courses and debating with his counselor. And the same can be done for someone who wants to go all Linux.
My experience is, despite heavy Microsoft pressure, we're a rather OS-balanced school. I can only hope all schools are along the same lines.
Oh, and how do I know we have heavy Microsoft pressure?
Just a hunch.
You like splinters in your crotch? -Jon Caldara
Windows rules in computers that people see. It does not rule the important systems that are needed to get things done. There companies like Sun (unix), IBM (mainframe, As/400, RS/6000, x86) rule. I've been in many big computer labs, and the only windows machines sit on the admin's desk where someone sits and makes sure the important machines are still running.
It is always a difficult battle convincing people that Windows has not won the battle. Windows won the desktop (but faces compititon from Macs, with KDE and Gnome starting to come on strong). In the backroom Unix is king with various other OSes there too (VMS, OS/390, AS/400 [whatever that is called], along with windows) In embedded systems vxWorks is king, but many have a custom designed OS that does as little as nessicary to get the job done and is not in the way the rest of the time.
There is more than the desktop to comtpuer programing. In fact you could argue that the future of programing is not on the desktop where most products are mature (few people need more than word97...), which isn't to say that there is no need for future development.
Yet for some strange reason, only one of the classes does its tests via SAM at course.com and additionally via a program called ExamView. The class in which SAM and ExamView are required is called "Intro to Microcomputers" (heh, I graduate this semester, I've gone through 4 C/C++ classes and a Java class, I just never took this class 'till now). The VB class I'm taking doesn't require either SAM or ExamView; tests in that class are given in the traditional manner, part written and part "do it on the computer and turn in the floppy."
Are students being indoctrinated into the Microsoft culture? Are students being forced to use Windows for learning, forced to use Windows for programming (all my C classes were done in either Turbo C or MS VC++), forced to use Windows for testing? Yes, absolutely. Does that bother me? Not really; I run Windows and MacOS and FreeBSD and I'm damn sure savvy enough after all this time to know which I prefer. I was more offended at the fact that SAM requires registration. In other words, course.com and God-knows-who it's associated with now knows:
- My full name
- My email address - required as our username
- Which IT-related class(es) I'm taking
- The grades I make on every test for those classes
I don't much mind the fact that the tests are being taken on Windows computers using Windows software. In fact, I prefer the SAM/ExamView tests to written tests; and SAM is actually a pretty nice package. Not only can it ask questions, it can emulate any Windows application, e.g. in my Intro class it emulates Word/Excel/Powerpoint in order to test students on whether or not they can complete the necessary tasks. It truly is a neat application and I can easily see how the college was sold on it.What bothers me is that, in the case of SAM, the exams are taken, scored, and graded on course.com's server... Which means that course.com knows my name and my grades. There was a EULA presented when signing up for a SAM login, but it's not like I had a choice as to whether to accept or reject the license. If I want to pass the class, I have to take the tests via SAM. Which leaves me no other choice but to enter my real information and accept the EULA.
course.com knows what I'm making on my tests, and I have no idea what the fuck they're doing with that knowledge. That, and only that, is what really ticks me off; even if I am acing 'em. My grades should be between me and my college, a third party shouldn't enter into the equation.
Shaun
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
I think you'll find that you're agreeing with me.
I was saying that your average Joe open source hobbyist giving away software is not predatory pricing -- he isn't a company. I wasn't saying that Microsoft wasn't using predatory pricing -- as a matter of fact, the point of my first post was that they were, in fact, doing so.
And protecting other businesses is how you protect consumers -- as long as there's competition, you (at least theoretically) force the market to give the consumer the best possible product and price.
May we never see th